Unlikely Adversaries ! (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

After lining up the numbers, I was suprised to see how pretty much even these two birds were. I'm not an expert on the Spitfire. I'm not real sure of its range on internal fuel at this time. The Kingcobra D could go 700 mls. on internal fuel and a max. of 2,000 mls. ferry. Any way the numbers worked out like this (figures in parenthesis are estimated):

Height....Spitfire.........P-63D
meters...mph/fpm......mph/fpm
......0.....366/(5080)..388/4,970
.1,000....389/(5035)..395/4,600
.2,000....397/4,985...405/4,540
.3,000....412/4,485...410/4,410
.4,000....416/(4095)..426/4,280
.5,000..(418)/4,070...435/4,120
.6,000..(432)/4,025...444/3,860
.7,000....445/3,485...451/3,470
.8,000....447/2,940...447/2,980
.9,000....444/2,410...441/2,560
10,000...437/1,910...433/2,120
11,000...427/1,360...425/1,680

I'm not sure what happened to the Spit's speed at 5km. It should read 418. The following is from America's Hundred Thousand by Francis H. Dean concerning the P-63:

MANEUVERING: Exceptionally easy to perform at all altitudes at which the aircraft would normally operate and a new pilot would quickly feel at ease doing them. The A/C responds rapidly to ailerons at all speeds.

TURNING ABILITY: About the same as the P-38J using (boosted) maneuvering flaps. The P-63 could get on the P-51B's tail in 3 to 4 turns and the P-63 performance got relitively better with increasing turning speed. With flaps down part way it was superior to most anything else in the air.

RANGE: Internal fuel placed in the wing only seriously limited the P-63's distance capability after combat at midpoint in a radius mission.

ROLLING: Action was rapid with light but positive forces. No effort and it would roll exactly on its longitudinal axis.

ZOOM CLIMB: Better than P38J or P-47D-20. Not quite as good as the P-51B.
 
Last edited:
Good question. From what I have seen, allied and axis fighters that entered Swiss airspace were typically in trouble before crossing into Swiss airspace and were escorted to a field to be interned for the duration of the war. It would be interesting to see if there ever were any air battles. I would think that the Germans respected the Swiss neutrality.
Oh but there were. In may 1940 several bombers of the LW were shot down over Swiss airspace. In order to teach them, the LW attacked in the first week of June 1940. A force of several He111's and BF110's attacked the Swiss airforce. 2 Bf110 and 1 He111 were lost aginst onSwiss Bf109C. 4 days later th LW attacked again, claiming 1 Bf109E vs the loss of one Bf110. Then 12 Swiss Bf109E's attacked the german formation (32 Bf110's) claiming 3 of the intruders.
 
Cimmex,
There were 13 P-63Es built with the same engine as the D but reverted to the car door. There are always difficulties with a new design. As I stated earlier, If the USAAF had needed the Kingcobra it would have been a whole new ball game. They would have backed Bell more allowing faster developement of the design. You are absolutely correct about the D crashing. As MikeGazdik said earlier, this is a "What if" not a "Did they" thread. Besides, this is more fun and the more I read about the P-63, the more I respect it.
 
Thanks Corsning, you grabbed the spirit of the thread! I didn't think of the match-up you started, but I like it.
 
Thank you Mike. This is actually fun.
I figured I'd give the Kingcobra one more shot before venturing on to other A/C. So this comparison seemed interesting. The Frank was considered to be faster climbing and more maneuverable than USAAF fighters. Or was it? The following is from the TAIC report on the Ki-84 vs the US test report on the P-63A-10 and an early test on a P-63A with water injection:

Height........Ki.84-1a......P-63A-10......P-63A(early w/water injection)
meters.......mph/fpm......mph/fpm......mph/fpm
......0.........362/4,275....383/4,980....381/4,600
.1,000........379/4,350....394/4,825....393/4,460
.2,000........389/3,890....407/4,625....402/4,280
.3,000........389/3,570....415/4,350....412/4,060
.4,000........388/3,590....421/3,950....419/3,880
.5,000........414/3,610....423/3,450....427/3,440
.6,000........426/3,350....422/2,950....430/3,070
.7,000........426/2,870....412/2,525....423/2,260
.8,000........416/2,280....407/1,960....414/2,240
.9,000........403/1,720....394/1,500....404/1,850
10,000.......387/1,175....376/1,025....393/1,430

With the Kingcobra's handling qualities this would have been an awsome contest if the Ki-84 was in perfect condition. Just another "What if".
 
Last edited:
Yes Yugoslavian had also Hurricane and a local built fighter IK-3 (and older models).
Was Emil vs Emil afaik were not deployed Friedrich in Balkans Campaign

i remembered reading about this somewhere and finally found it....all about the battle of belgrade. interesting reading..

WW II ACE STORIES

i actually would have like to know more about the Ikarus IK-3 that they used as well.
 
bobbysocks,
Milos Sijacki posted a thread on the Ikarus Ik-3 on this sight back in Oct. 29, 2007.
He posted pretty much everything I know about the fighter.
 
What if Finish Brewster Buffalos had met the Royal Navy's raid on Kirkenes and Petsamo from the aircraft carriers HMS Victorious and Furious in July 1941. This would oppose the Buffalo against the Fairy Fulmar. The Fulmar had a performance aimed at low to medium altitude with a maximum speed of 272 mph at 7,250 ft while the Finish Buffalo's was 297 mph at 15,675 ft (both from Wikipedia to show the depth of my research). I would assume that the Finns would win that fight. Of course we could tip the advantage to the RN by sending the Martlet II.
 
I suspect that there must have been a thread opposing the aircraft powered by the DB 601 and DB 605 engines but we could oppose them here. Clearly the Fiat G. 56 with the DB 603 and the Bf 109G-10 and K have an unfair advantage with much more power but what if we compare aircraft with the same engine or very similar engines? For example, we have the early Bf 109Gs, the various Macchi C205s, the Fiat G.55, the Reggiane Re.2005, Saab J21 and the VL Pyörremyrsky. Stretching it a little we could add the Kawasaki Ki-61-II as the DB 605A may give 1250 ps as "Kurzleistung" at 2600 rpm at 5800 m while the Ha-140 (Ha 60-41) may also give 1250 hp (ps?) at 2650 rpm at 5700 m at what may be an equivalent military power setting.
 
If the rocket had a direct bead on the jet, it would have one maybe two chances to fire. There is no doubt the 163 would catch it if the 262 was unaware of its initial presents. The limited fuel of the 163 would be its downfall. One on one it stood a chance. If it used all its fuel on intercepting the first jet, the second would catch and destroy it. Maneuverability: Me 163. Stamina: Me 262. I'd go with the 262 and keep my eyes open.
 
It would have been a slaughter. The Fins lightened and in someways improved the Brewster. The Martlet II is another matter. IF the F4F pilots used mutual support as the USN pilots did they would have given the Buffaloes a tough time. It would have depended on how they were flown. Maneuverability: F2A. Ruggedness: F4F. Climb: F2A. Dive: F4F. One on one? It all depends. Offensive: F2A. Defensive: Martlet II.
 
The Saab J21 extremely innovative but lacked performance in 1945 to compete. Mc.205, don't know enough about it. But, excellent maneuverability, not the climb of the 202. G.55, Nice, but not in the same league (as least as far as I know). But then, I am not a scholar on Italian A/C. Re.2005, Beautiful, just beautiful. But don't know enough about it. The Ki.61-II on the other hand, well...TAIC report goes like this:

Meters.. mph/fpm/time to height
......0...330/3425/
-1,000..348/3500/--.8
-2,000..362/3540/-1.9
-3,000..363/3175/-2.8
-4,000..375/3050/-4.0
-5,000..390/3030/-5.5
-6,000..402/2960/-6.3
-7,000..409/2800/-7.6
-8,000..417/2590/-8.9
-9,000..417/2280/10.3
10,000..406/1760/N.G.
11,000..390/1225/N.G.

Its speed was at worst equal to any of the of the others and probably better. Its climb rate was more or less that of the Re.2005. But it had high altitude performance that surpassed them all. It was very maneuverable but so were the Italian A/C. I just don't know enough about the others to make a solid statement about there comparison. So..........guys out there in FIGHTER A/C LAND I need a little help here.
 
Not a what if! I believe the only plane the Russian P-63 shot down in Manchuria was a K-84. I don't have any documentation but it came from another forum thread.
Thank you Mike. This is actually fun.
I figured I'd give the Kingcobra one more shot before venturing on to other A/C. So this comparison seemed interesting. The Frank was considered to be faster climbing and more maneuverable than USAAF fighters. Or was it? The following is from the TAIC report on the Ki-84 vs the US test report on the P-63A-10 and an early test on a P-63A with water injection:

Height........Ki.84-1a......P-63A-10......P-63A(early w/water injection)
meters.......mph/fpm......mph/fpm......mph/fpm
......0.........362/4,275....383/4,980....381/4,600
.1,000........379/4,350....394/4,825....393/4,460
.2,000........389/3,890....407/4,625....402/4,280
.3,000........389/3,570....415/4,350....412/4,060
.4,000........388/3,590....421/3,950....419/3,880
.5,000........414/3,610....423/3,450....427/3,440
.6,000........426/3,350....422/2,950....430/3,070
.7,000........426/2,870....412/2,525....423/2,260
.8,000........416/2,280....407/1,960....414/2,240
.9,000........403/1,720....394/1,500....404/1,850
10,000.......387/1,175....376/1,025....393/1,430

With the Kingcobra's handling qualities this would have been an awsome contest if the Ki-84 was in perfect condition. Just another "What if".
 
What is the other thread??? This is more for my opinion that the P-39 / P-63 is the supreme war fighting machine of WWII!
(at least through my jaded glasses)
 
What was the reason behind not allowing the Soviets to use the P-63 against Germany, and only being used in the far east?
Did the Russians actually comply with that ?
 
theres gehkos soviet aircraft line that says they did use them against the Germans...unofficially, it would be intersting to know the reasonong behind the why not.
 
From "World War II Database":
In 1943, an agreement was reached between United States and Russia noting that P-63 Kingcobra fighters must remain in the Soviet Far East, building up for the eventual declaration of war against Japan. However, there were unconfirmed reports that the Russians secretly used them against German forces in Europe, violating the terms of the agreement; these Russian P-63 aircraft supposedly fought near Koningsberg, in Poland, and on the final drive toward Berlin. There were also German reports of possible P-63 aircraft destroyed in action, though also not confirmed. During Operation August Storm, these aircraft were used both as ground attack aircraft as well as fighters against the Japanese in Manchuria, China and north Korea.

Picture this, one nation (US) gives another nation (USSR) weapons and then tells them where and how to use them. Hummmm, let me think.........???????.......Yeah, Right!
First of all I think the US government of late 1943 was becoming disgusted with the USSR for not helping out on both fronts to the extent of the Allied nations. Especially after all the help UK and US had given them. The P-63 terms were in hope this would change now that the Germans were on the defensive and being driven back.
Then I think the USSR government didn't like being told what to do (think of the Cold War).
OK, after stating that, I believe the Kingcobra was used against the Germans. I also believe it would have been as "Low Key" as possible in order to not make political waves. Of course, this is just my opinion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back